Hollie Maea:manimal2878: RevMercutio: A lot of people seem to be eager to defend a known pedophile like the Nuge.

Uh, who has defended him? There seems to be universal hatred for Nugent.

The Romney boys think he's the best thing since sliced bread. Even Mitt likes him because he has low self esteem and likes anyone who says something good about him, or hell even someone who merely says something bad about an opponent of his.

It meant you could own and use weapons that were equal to, or better than, those used by the most mordern army of the day.

Try again.

Why? I was right the first time.

No, I'm afraid you were not. The phrase "bear arms" referred to formal military service. If we want to go strictly by the common definitions of the time, the 2nd Amendment should be recognized as giving the right for everyone to join the military.

How do you reconcile that with the fact the founding fathers were completely against having a standing army?

They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

Wooly Bully:You're absolutely right about that. If you want to know who's a good player, you ask musicians. There are no musicians who respect his musicianship because he has no talent. he is of marginal talent.

FTFY. I think he sucks, too, but the guy has sold a lot of albums. You don't do that without at least some ability.

Great_Milenko:He must have really enjoyed his last visit from the secret service to ask for another one so soon.

Actually he has crossed into the realm of the untouchables. Like the cliche of banks etc being too big to fail, this guy is now too famous (infamous) to be murdered. No different than folks like Limbaugh etc.

It meant you could own and use weapons that were equal to, or better than, those used by the most mordern army of the day.

Try again.

Why? I was right the first time.

No, I'm afraid you were not. The phrase "bear arms" referred to formal military service. If we want to go strictly by the common definitions of the time, the 2nd Amendment should be recognized as giving the right for everyone to join the military.

How do you reconcile that with the fact the founding fathers were completely against having a standing army?

They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

-- Noah Webster - 1787

Now I guess you'll invent something that contradicts this, no?

You don't believe that the US Constitution allows a standing army? How do you then account for the fact that the United States Army has been in continuous existence since 1789?

keylock71:Having said that, I want nothing to do with the modern NRA. They're not defending my interests or freedoms, they're defending the interests of gun manufacturers with deep pockets.

This is pretty much why I dropped out of the NRA as well. It became clear a few years ago that their mission had changed. We really do need an organization like the NRA of the old days, though - I don't think there's enough of an emphasis on gun safety as there should be.

/don't point it at anything you don't want dead.//always assume it's loaded///finger off the trigger until you're really ready to fire.

It meant you could own and use weapons that were equal to, or better than, those used by the most mordern army of the day.

Try again.

Why? I was right the first time.

No, I'm afraid you were not. The phrase "bear arms" referred to formal military service. If we want to go strictly by the common definitions of the time, the 2nd Amendment should be recognized as giving the right for everyone to join the military.

How do you reconcile that with the fact the founding fathers were completely against having a standing army?

They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

-- Noah Webster - 1787

Now I guess you'll invent something that contradicts this, no?

You don't believe that the US Constitution allows a standing army? How do you then account for the fact that the United States Army has been in continuous existence since 1789?

Neither "the founders were against it" nor "its a bad idea" imply that something is unconstitutional.

It meant you could own and use weapons that were equal to, or better than, those used by the most mordern army of the day.

Try again.

Why? I was right the first time.

No, I'm afraid you were not. The phrase "bear arms" referred to formal military service. If we want to go strictly by the common definitions of the time, the 2nd Amendment should be recognized as giving the right for everyone to join the military.

How do you reconcile that with the fact the founding fathers were completely against having a standing army?

They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

-- Noah Webster - 1787

Now I guess you'll invent something that contradicts this, no?

You don't believe that the US Constitution allows a standing army? How do you then account for the fact that the United States Army has been in continuous existence since 1789?

Show me where I said the constitution doesn't allow for it. And by the way, good effort at ignoring the quote I so helpfully provided.

calm like a bomb:HAMMERTOE: Philip Francis Queeg: They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

And the Second Amendment allowed for the regulation of this standing army by an armed populace.

Did it account for their sheep-like slaughter after trying to enforce this regulation due to their lack of airplanes, tanks, high explosives, and such?

Last time an "armed populace" tried to regulate a "standing army," brother was pitted against brother, slavery was abolished, and the southeast quarter of the country got a 170-year butthurt over the fact that they lost, and hide under the flags of those losers to deny that fact.

SixOfDLoC:keylock71: Having said that, I want nothing to do with the modern NRA. They're not defending my interests or freedoms, they're defending the interests of gun manufacturers with deep pockets.

This is pretty much why I dropped out of the NRA as well. It became clear a few years ago that their mission had changed. We really do need an organization like the NRA of the old days, though - I don't think there's enough of an emphasis on gun safety as there should be.

The country needs more people like you. And if people would acknowledge the Tea Party was formed because the Koch brothers don't want to pay taxes and leave that bullshiat organization then we'd all be better off.

Farkage:They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

-- Noah Webster - 1787

Now I guess you'll invent something that contradicts this, no?

You don't believe that the US Constitution allows a standing army? How do you then account for the fact that the United States Army has been in continuous existence since 1789?

Show me where I said the constitution doesn't allow for it. And by the way, good effort at ignoring the quote I so helpfully provided.

You said they were "completely against" a standing army. If the were completely against it, it would never have been allowed under the Constitution, nor would one have been in existence continually from the creation of the republic.

Bloody William:calm like a bomb: HAMMERTOE: Philip Francis Queeg: They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

And the Second Amendment allowed for the regulation of this standing army by an armed populace.

Did it account for their sheep-like slaughter after trying to enforce this regulation due to their lack of airplanes, tanks, high explosives, and such?

Last time an "armed populace" tried to regulate a "standing army," brother was pitted against brother, slavery was abolished, and the southeast quarter of the country got a 170-year butthurt over the fact that they lost, and hide under the flags of those losers to deny that fact.

calm like a bomb:Bloody William: calm like a bomb: HAMMERTOE: Philip Francis Queeg: They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

And the Second Amendment allowed for the regulation of this standing army by an armed populace.

Did it account for their sheep-like slaughter after trying to enforce this regulation due to their lack of airplanes, tanks, high explosives, and such?

Last time an "armed populace" tried to regulate a "standing army," brother was pitted against brother, slavery was abolished, and the southeast quarter of the country got a 170-year butthurt over the fact that they lost, and hide under the flags of those losers to deny that fact.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

indarwinsshadow:My idea, is you can have your weapons and use them. Only at an approved gun range under the supervision of a range Marshall. You can go, use your guns, but you can never remove them from that supervised setting for any reason. If you want to move them, you must use a bonded mover that will move your weapon from point a to b. Ammunition can only be purchased at an approved gun range for use only at that range. Each round of ammunition has a micro dot stamp embedded in the casting which is impossible to remove. If purchased ammo is used in an illegal setting, the ammunition can be traced back to the seller and owner.

It needs some tweaking, but, it get's around the complaint that politicians want to remove your access to guns. It gets around your possession and use laws and restricts those uses to the intended environment.

calm like a bomb:Farkage: calm like a bomb: HAMMERTOE: Philip Francis Queeg: They weren't completely against a standing Army. The US Constitution allows a standing army.

And the Second Amendment allowed for the regulation of this standing army by an armed populace.

Did it account for their sheep-like slaughter after trying to enforce this regulation due to their lack of airplanes, tanks, high explosives, and such?

I guess that's why we were done in Afghanistan so quickly too, right?And that is completely off topic as well. Nice try though.

I guess it's off topic when I point out that your assertion doesn't work in the real world. Good to know.

So it's okay to ignore parts of the constitution if you have determined they may not "work in the real world"? Interesting. I always thought the proper thing to do would be live by the law of the land or change it. And yes, there are established ways to amend the constitution. It' been done in the past, so I know you'll get right on that.

Bloody William:Last time an "armed populace" tried to regulate a "standing army," brother was pitted against brother, slavery was abolished, and the southeast quarter of the country got a 170-year butthurt over the fact that they lost, and hide under the flags of those losers to deny that fact.

Actually, last time an armed populace tried to regulate a standing army, Obama set a timetable for withdrawal.

Joe Blowme:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The interpretation of which is generally left to the Supreme Court and our system of checks and balances, not some farkwit "rocker" best known for shiatty lyrics, repetitve riffs, and threatening the democratically elected president of the United States with armed insurrection.

trea·son /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled[tree-zuhn] Show IPAnoun1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Modern day penalties for treason include long jail sentances and, in some cases, the death penalty.

So, guess what dipshait, keep egging on the guys with more/bigger guns than you and don't see if they apply this law to your forehead.

REO-Weedwagon:Ted Nugent may know a lot of things - how to play the hell out of a guitar, how to hunt with any type of weapon, how to swing from a vine wearing a loincloth - but he apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "treason"

Not even close, subby.

Exactly. Obama, Biden and many members of Congress regularly violate their oaths of office. By my definition, that's treason. Unfortunately, the three branches of the government don't have the spine to clean house and the citizenry's only legal option is the ballot box.

SixOfDLoC:I don't think there's enough of an emphasis on gun safety as there should be.

Completely agreed... Just look at that moron, who was trying to make a "political point" in Utah a few weeks back.

My grandfather pretty much taught me to shoot (using an old clunky .22 at the rifle range at the Newport Naval Base). Seeing the way some folks these days treat their firearms like fashion accessories or political statements would have drove him nuts.

ranak:trea·son /ˈtrizən/ Show Spelled[tree-zuhn] Show IPAnoun1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

So, basically, the entire federal government is guilty of treason at one point or another.

Joe Blowme:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

coeyagi:OhioUGrad: misanthropologist: Nugent is about as reasonable and relevant as Trump. I reckon Trump could do more long-term damage to the world with his money (assuming that it is his money, and not a whole shiatload of leveraged debt), but Nugent seems destined to go out in a blaze of idiocy, Ruby Ridge or Waco style.

Maybe he can be head of security at Glenn Becks teatard utopia, then when the whole cult destroys itself, no one will be surprised or saddened.

Welcome to the liberal mindset. Doesn't matter if you're a musician, author, sports figure or movie star or whatever....once you are tagged a 'conservative' anything you have ever done before sucks and you are an asshat.

Bloody William:Joe Blowme: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The interpretation of which is generally left to the Supreme Court and our system of checks and balances, not some farkwit "rocker" best known for shiatty lyrics, repetitve riffs, and threatening the democratically elected president of the United States with armed insurrection.

Can you cite the part where he was "threatening the democratically elected president of the United States with armed insurrection" in the article because while he mentions a Concord bridge, there is no direct threat to the POTUS. So if the SC says so you are all for it? You have no sense of right and wrong do you? You have to be told how to think and what is right and wrong dont you? I bet you would have supported slavery too because it was the law of the land huh?

farkmedown:REO-Weedwagon: Ted Nugent may know a lot of things - how to play the hell out of a guitar, how to hunt with any type of weapon, how to swing from a vine wearing a loincloth - but he apparently does not understand the meaning of the word "treason"

Not even close, subby.

Exactly. Obama, Biden and many members of Congress regularly violate their oaths of office. By my definition, that's treason. Unfortunately, the three branches of the government don't have the spine to clean house and the citizenry's only legal option is the ballot box.

It isn't. The founders were very clear about what treason is specifically because they knew hysterical nutjobs would throw the term at everyone they disagreed with politically.

but of course .... but just like any org with a huge following the majority of it's members are too uneducated or ignorant to realize it. I hazard a guess that most of NRA's members are also 'only' FOX News watchers which in itself explains a lot.